AHMAD v. GRUNTAL & CO.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Order to Show cause why the proceeds of a supplemental life insurance policy should not be paid to the plaintiff. Earlier this Court allowed $ 100,000 of the proceeds of the supplemental life insurance policy to be paid to the plaintiff. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court holds that the balance of the supplemental life insurance policy should be paid to the plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

The Court has pending before it two related lawsuits. The present lawsuit, Ahmad v. Gruntal, is an interpleader action to determine who is entitled to proceeds from two insurance policies taken out on the life of Waseem Ahmad. Plaintiff, Saiqa Ahmad, is the widow of Waseem Ahmad. The Court also has pending before its Gruntal v. Meizoso, a case that alleges Waseem Ahmad and his superior, Mr. Meizoso, embezzled some $ 8 million from Gruntal. On April 3, 1995, Gruntal amended its complaint in Gruntal v. Meizoso to add Saiqa Ahmad as a defendant.

On February 14, 1994, plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause in Ahmad v. Gruntal why proceeds from the supplemental life insurance policy should not paid to the plaintiff. Mr. Ahmad had two separate life insurance policies. The basic life insurance policy was paid for entirely by his employer. This policy provided benefits equal to one and one half times Mr. Ahmad's salary. In addition, on August 7, 1987, Mr. Ahmad enrolled in a supplemental life insurance policy. This policy provided benefits equal to four times Mr. Ahmad's salary. This policy was paid for by Mr. Ahmad at a cost $ 47.60 per month, which was deducted directly from Mr. Ahmad's paycheck. Waseem Ahmad died on October 16, 1994. The beneficiary of the supplemental life insurance policy is Mr. Ahmad's widow, Saiqa Ahmad, the plaintiff in this action.

There is a question as to whether Waseem Ahmad changed the beneficiary under the basic life insurance policy from his wife to his estate. It if is determined that the estate is the beneficiary, then persons other than the plaintiff, Saiqa Ahmad, may be entitled to the proceeds of the basic life insurance policy. Therefore, this policy is not at issue in the motion currently before the Court. The only issue is whether Saiqa Ahmad is entitled to proceeds from the supplemental life insurance policy.

Since her husband's death, Saiqa Ahmad, has been subsiding on Social Security benefits of $ 1,644 per month. She has been unable to make her mortgage payments and the bank is threatening her with foreclosure. Thus, the Court found sufficient grounds on March 15, 1995 to release $ 100,000 of the proceeds on the supplemental life insurance policy to plaintiff. This application focuses on whether the balance of the supplemental life insurance should be paid to plaintiff.

The insurance company, Provident Life Insurance Co., has deposited the sum of $ 621,121.14 with the Clerk of the Court, comprising $ 179,000.00 of the proceeds on the basic life insurance policy and $ 432,000.00 of the proceeds on the supplemental life insurance policy.

On April 17, 1994, this Court issued an order dismissing Provident Life Insurance Co. from this litigation.

Gruntal argues that because Mr. Ahmad is alleged to have embezzled $ 8 million from the company it is entitled to keep all of his salary. Gruntal further argues that because Mr. Ahmad is alleged to have paid for the supplemental life insurance policy with his salary they are entitled to keep the proceeds of the supplemental life insurance policy as well. Moreover, Gruntal alleges that Saiqa Ahmad may have been a knowing participant in the embezzlement scheme, and, therefore, is not entitled to the proceeds of the supplemental life insurance policy. Gruntal's arguments are premised on equity. Gruntal asks this Court to place a constructive trust on the proceeds of the supplemental life insurance policy.

When Gruntal first alleged that Saiqa Ahmad was a knowing participant in the embezzlement scheme, this Court granted Gruntal thirty days to uncover some evidence to support its allegations. One month later, the only evidence Gruntal can point to is that Saiqa Ahmad's bank account received $ 130,000 from companies allegedly operated by her husband in conjunction with his alleged embezzlement scheme. Gruntal argues that this evidence is enough for the Court to impose a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds.

In the alternative, Gruntal asks for still more time to uncover evidence that Saiqa Ahmad was a knowing participant in the embezzlement. The Court notes that in the thirty days Gruntal had to investigate this matter it chose not to take the deposition of Saiqa Ahmad. Therefore, the Court finds no basis ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.